Should voting be encouraged?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Is the purpose of electing officials by vote to ensure that the people of the country are all represented? Or is it enough that they can be represented if they make the effort?

In some countries they fine people for not showing up to the polls, good idea or no? Should criminals be allowed to vote to ensure they are represented? What of the various and sometimes half-baked plans for limiting the number of eligible voters by adding requirements based on education, or on a community service requirement, or a "not on welfare" requirement?

Does the idea of getting "better" voters (even through a simple thing like not fining the apathetic people for not showing up) have any merit?

[a completely inoffensive name]

The apathetic are stupid not to exercise their opinion. I don't want stupid people voting. Therefore, I don't think we should cater towards getting apathetic people to vote.

[Furunculus]

"Should voting be encouraged?"

Yes, you are rrsponsible for the country you live in.

"Should voting be encouraged by legal compulsion?"

No, if that is necessary they you already have an irresponsible electorate.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Voting should be encouraged. However, mandatory participation smacks of repression of freedom of choice, government intrusion/interference. Those who wish to be "left alone" and don't want to participate in the political process shouldn't be punished for it.

[rory_20_uk]

Voting per se should not be encouraged, but a greater awareness of the matters that affect our country should be. This would then encourage more activism of the people, one method is to vote in elections.

There are already enough under-informed people voting (I'm probably amongst them). Increasing their number might be a step towards democracy, but not a better government.

~:smoking:

[pevergreen]

I don't want stupid people voting.

+1

Mandatory here...its not really that hard to do. Depending how far away from a voting place you are, theres one 1 minute walk from my house, so...

[Rhyfelwyr]

I just see the presence of a democratic system as a safeguard against tyranny. Generally, I don't need to vote. But if a threat does arise, say, the BNP, then people could mobilise and make sure they don't get in. Simply the threat of having this mass mobilisation of voters is enough to prevent the fringe elements from getting into power, without having to actually exercise the right to vote.

In other words, if I feel the need to vote, the option is there, and knowing that alone should be enough to keep the politicians in line.

[Reenk Roink]

Very few things I'd actually bother and vote for but if they tried to make voting mandatory I'd vote against that.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I don't care to have the government or others encourage people to vote. If they don't feel strongly about political issues to vote on their own, they shouldn't be encouraged to vote.

Instead, people should be encouraged to get informed about politics, though doing that in a non-partisan way might be difficult. If becoming informed leads them to vote, so much the better.

CR

[Reenk Roink]

Instead, people should be encouraged to get informed about politics, though doing that in a non-partisan way might be difficult. If becoming informed leads them to vote, so much the better.

This is probably the best way to go about it. :yes:

[a completely inoffensive name]

I agree with CR as well. I think you could encourage people to get informed about politics by making the connection between politics and their life clearer. Many young people don't see how government impacts their lives out of naivety or ignorance perhaps but they don't. I tell my friends if you don't know what your voting about, don't vote. Also, if they have any questions about an issue they sometimes ask me to give a summary of the issue and I honestly try to give a balanced overview of each sides arguments and give examples of how each side will impact them if that side were to prevail.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I get angry when I miss a primary. I don't believe I have ever missed a general. It is inconceivable to me that an adult would NOT want to become informed and exercise the franchise.

However, a majority prefer not to do so. Encouraging them to do so and to do so in an informed fashion is a worthy goal, albeit not all that attainable. Forcing all to vote -- even the unrepentently ignorant -- does no service to any of us.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Adults work too much to have the energy and time to care about politics. Why do you think that we have created an extreme trend toward shorter and shorter sound bites?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Adults work too much to have the energy and time to care about politics. Why do you think that we have created an extreme trend toward shorter and shorter sound bites?

When our electorate lets themselves become equally ignorant of BOTH politics and Angelina Jolie's breeding habits, THEN I will admit that they truly lack the time and energy to become informed about the former.

[a completely inoffensive name]

When our electorate lets themselves become equally ignorant of BOTH politics and Angelina Jolie's breeding habits, THEN I will admit that they truly lack the time and energy to become informed about the former.

Entertainment is easier to comprehend then politics. It easier to comprehend and get angry over X actor being a douche and cheating on his wife then it is to understand what it will mean when the 2014 provisions of the health care reform bill kick in.

Again, it's a problem of too much work, too little energy. You spend what little time/energy you have for maximum benefit, so if you want to be angry about something you pick something petty and easy to grasp.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Adults work too much to have the energy and time to care about politics. Why do you think that we have created an extreme trend toward shorter and shorter sound bites?

Aren't unemployed people the least likely to vote?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Aren't unemployed people the least likely to vote?

Well, when day to day survival becomes a terrifying factor in your life, yes you begin to forget about voting and politics completely.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, when day to day survival becomes a terrifying factor in your life, yes you begin to forget about voting and politics completely.

I doubt most unemployed people fear for their day to day survival, they just aren't interested in politics. Benefits are pretty comfortable here.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I doubt most unemployed people fear for their day to day survival, they just aren't interested in politics. Benefits are pretty comfortable here.

Yeah you are right. Poor don't have it bad, they are just lazy when it comes to politics.

[HoreTore]

Yeah you are right. Poor don't have it bad, they are just lazy when it comes to politics.

So much prejudice in such a short statement.... Impressive!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So much prejudice in such a short statement.... Impressive!

I believe they were suggesting that most of the poor in Western societies aren't struggling to survive in quite so grinding a manner as would the poor in Haiti or Sao Paolo. I think it's pretty clear neither of them was evincing an Antoinette-esque attitude.

[pevergreen]

How can you say that your government is elected by the people when only 63% of americans voted in the 2008 election?

95% of australians vote. Its 20 minutes max 2 times every 3 years.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

How can you say that your government is elected by the people when only 63% of americans voted in the 2008 election?


Because all the eligible voters could have voted if they wanted too.

[drone]

How can you say that your government is elected by the people when only 63% of americans voted in the 2008 election?
We don't have a Gah! option. Which I definitely would have used in 2008. :yes:

[a completely inoffensive name]

So much prejudice in such a short statement.... Impressive!


I believe they were suggesting that most of the poor in Western societies aren't struggling to survive in quite so grinding a manner as would the poor in Haiti or Sao Paolo. I think it's pretty clear neither of them was evincing an Antoinette-esque attitude.

I wasn't suggesting that. I was being sarcastic. You can't really tell me that when you have no home, no money and no job you are going to be thinking or even more important informed about politics are you?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I wasn't suggesting that. I was being sarcastic. You can't really tell me that when you have no home, no money and no job you are going to be thinking or even more important informed about politics are you?

Is said the unemployed, not the homeless and bankrupt. I'm thinking about the parts of Britain where generations live off the state and never work, the old mining towns where the disappearence of heavy industry gave way to the benefits culture. They have a home more than enough money to get by, and all the resources they need to be politically informed (their parents certainly were back in the 80's), but they still don't vote.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Is said the unemployed, not the homeless and bankrupt. I'm thinking about the parts of Britain where generations live off the state and never work, the old mining towns where the disappearence of heavy industry gave way to the benefits culture. They have a home more than enough money to get by, and all the resources they need to be politically informed (their parents certainly were back in the 80's), but they still don't vote.

Well, I have never visited Britain, so I can't comment on that specific group.

[rory_20_uk]

People vote if there is a key issue and a difference between the parties.
If any party was stupid enough to have in their manifesto explicit cuts to key benefits the recipients would vote for those who will keep them.

Everyone does it. The unions back their strokes, the very rich and big business theirs (or more often both).

Before the election the senior GPs were clearly unhappy about the 50% tax bracket. I wasn't as my salary is nowhere near the levels required to be affected.

~:smoking:

[Tellos Athenaios]

Because all the eligible voters could have voted if they wanted too.

But there is a deeper point though: if you live in a 2 party system where only ~63% of the electorate bother to turn up, then ~42% of the electorate can vote for 66% of all seats to one party. That equals a quite a scope for those 42% of the electorate to hand out a mandate to inflict an awful lot on the majority of the electorate which didn't vote in favour of the ruling party (i.e. and thus didn't grant any mandate for such decisions). I repeat: using those numbers, a ~42% support of the electorate is enough to qualify for a super majority. And it is quite possible to win tickets to the White House with the backing of only 35% of the electorate...

That is a pretty big bet on “silence is assent”.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But there is a deeper point though: if you live in a 2 party system where only ~63% of the electorate bother to turn up, then ~42% of the electorate can vote for 66% of all seats to one party. That equals a quite a scope for those 42% of the electorate to hand out a mandate to inflict an awful lot on the majority of the electorate which didn't vote in favour of the ruling party (i.e. and thus didn't grant any mandate for such decisions). I repeat: using those numbers, a ~42% support of the electorate is enough to qualify for a super majority. And it is quite possible to win tickets to the White House with the backing of only 35% of the electorate...

That is a pretty big bet on “silence is assent”.

:sweatdrop:

What's a big bet? I can't see what you're saying here. You have like a dangling conclusion or something.

With everyone voting, you are making a bet that the 51% got it right. With not everyone voting you are making a bet that 51% of those who cared enough to go and vote got it right.

The president has the right to the powers listed in the constitution because he was elected by the fair process outlined in our laws. Having a majority of votes from all eligible voters is not necessary. Why would it be? I don't understand. We have mechanisms in our system of government that go both ways--to keep the people as a check upon the government, and to keep the government separate from the popular vote of the people.

[Tellos Athenaios]

What I am saying is that your voting system in the USA implicitly assumes that a sizable number of the electorate silently agrees with what is decided for them by others. Thus, people who didn't bother to give their electoral consent are implicitly presumed to have given it anyway when a party uses super majority, or filibuster tactics in Congress & House of Representatives.

This is a problem which to some extent exists in any democratic system (because people who vote blank or don't vote can hardly be counted among active supporters of anything regardless), but it is more worrying when you look at the USA with two big amorphous blobs called “Dem & GOP” and less than two thirds bothering to vote for anything at all. So it'd be a stretch of the imagination that with those two amorphous blobs that can't even get all of their own representatives/candidates to speak the same party line somehow all of the people who voted on one of these candidates would do that. Which calls into question what things like a super majority or a filibuster really are worth, in terms of support from the electorate; at which point you have to wonder like pevergreen did: to what extent is the USA system truly (functionally) democratic?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What I am saying is that your voting system in the USA implicitly assumes that a sizable number of the electorate silently agrees with what is decided for them by others. Thus, people who didn't bother to give their electoral consent are implicitly presumed to have given it anyway when a party uses super majority, or filibuster tactics in Congress & House of Representatives.

I don't think it assumes that. I've never assumed that. I assume they don't know/don't care. That they are apathetic maybe--or even that they simply don't have the time to make a proper judgment. That they agree with 1 party on somethings but agree with the other party on others. But the whole reason we have a republic instead of direct democracy is that we assume people don't have the necessary amount of time required to decide on everything. It's a natural conclusion from that that they don't all have the time to decide who it is best to vote for.


This is a problem which to some extent exists in any democratic system (because people who vote blank or don't vote can hardly be counted among active supporters of anything regardless), but it is more worrying when you look at the USA with two big amorphous blobs called “Dem & GOP” and less than two thirds bothering to vote for anything at all. So it'd be a stretch of the imagination that with those two amorphous blobs that can't even get all of their own representatives/candidates to speak the same party line somehow all of the people who voted on one of these candidates would do that. Which calls into question what things like a super majority or a filibuster really are worth, in terms of support from the electorate; at which point you have to wonder like pevergreen did: to what extent is the USA system truly (functionally) democratic?

It's not! It's a republic! Or a democratic republic, or whatever you call it. We use the word "democracy" as a general positive term to talk about systems of government that aren't strictly democratic.

Your conclusion is still "dangling"...the idea that the more democratic a government is the better it is. That's an assumption you never quite state.

[Beskar]

It's not! It's a republic! Or a democratic republic, or whatever you call it. We use the word "democracy" as a general positive term to talk about systems of government that aren't strictly democratic.

Your conclusion is still "dangling"...the idea that the more democratic a government is the better it is. That's an assumption you never quite state.

America is a Constitutional Republic. (official designation)

[a completely inoffensive name]

America's system has never been adequate at representing the publics views because it wasn't designed to. The problem you describe should only be limited to the House of Representatives, but idiots decided to promote the idea that the public choose the Senate as well and before that, the President. They were even too lazy to get rid of the system of electorates for the President and instead just tried to adapt it to the publics vote that now you get laughable results where the guy with the popular vote loses.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I don't think it assumes that. I've never assumed that. I assume they don't know/don't care. That they are apathetic maybe--or even that they simply don't have the time to make a proper judgment. That they agree with 1 party on somethings but agree with the other party on others. But the whole reason we have a republic instead of direct democracy is that we assume people don't have the necessary amount of time required to decide on everything. It's a natural conclusion from that that they don't all have the time to decide who it is best to vote for. That is not the point. The point is of legitimacy. Under what mandate exactly does Congress or the House of Representatives act? Under that granted to it by the electorate of the USA.


It's not! It's a republic! Or a democratic republic, or whatever you call it. We use the word "democracy" as a general positive term to talk about systems of government that aren't strictly democratic. So do I, so why the terminology outburst? I call that of the USA a democratic system (of governance); as in having some of the qualities that mark a democracy.


Your conclusion is still "dangling"...the idea that the more democratic a government is the better it is. That's an assumption you never quite state.

No that is not my idea nor my assumption. I've given my conclusion already: when a party cannot typically claim the mandate of even a simple majority of the electorate, what legitimacy is there really left for how its elected representatives behave? What exactly is the worth of even a “2/3rds” majority in seats when those are derived from active support of only 42% of the electorate? Silent approval of another 25% that didn't vote? How did they give their mandate to Congress & House in its current incarnation?

It is pretty odd the more you think about it: no other institution works like this where people can claim your approval without your explicit consent (either written, or spoken in the presence of reliable witnesses)...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But our representatives pass laws that polls show are unpopular with a majority of americans. So why would silent assent be an issue when vocal opposition is not?

Why is getting 51% of the vote of the 60% who voted, not good? If it was 51% of 100% what would the mandate be like? It wouldn't be "don't pass an unpopular law".

I don't see where the president claims to have the approval of the people anyway. They track his approval rating, it's often below 50.

You're bending my mind here...I don't comprehend what legitimacy you think obama and congress lack. Why would legitimacy come from having 51% of the eligible voters?

The supreme court is legitimate even though there is no popular vote for them.

Sorry for the scrambled response. I mean, I understand what you are saying, I just don't see why you are saying it.

I think the tacit consent in this place is consenting to let the people who do vote decide, not positive support for the officials who are elected as a result. I mean, if you win the lottery, and know you won the lottery, but never claim your money, aren't you consenting to give it up?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sasaki is right, if the people don't vote they will give up their consent to be governed by people of their choosing. Tellos is right, there is no sense of legitimacy for the Representatives because they don't have a simple majority of the voting age population.

This is why Congress does what it wants, which is why everyone rates every Congressman (and Congress as a whole) but their own lower then any President.

Americans are stupid and instead of recognizing that because not enough people vote, the elected have long ignored the part about following the wishes of the voters and instead have recognized only that they are frustrated with the process. So instead of making educated decisions (here is where anti-intellectual pride ***** us over) they don't vote or decide that government simply cant work, so they start supporting candidates who actively try to dismantle the effectiveness of government (as of right now, the Republican Party). Which makes the frustration of Congress not handling things right bigger, creating a feedback loop. All the while asking more from government without wanting responsibility for paying for it.

[Reenk Roink]

Trust me, just because I'm silent in not voting does not mean I assent to anything. It's a mixture of some (extremely well reasoned) apathy, along with pragmatic concerns of the real value of my vote and the fact that it's hard to find a candidate on the religious left which is the only group I would identify with politically.

Like the most esteemed pever points out, it is incorrect to say our government is elected by the people. More like just a portion of the people. Even in Australia it wouldn't be right to say that, although they come A LOT closer to it then we do.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Trust me, just because I'm silent in not voting does not mean I assent to anything. It's a mixture of some (extremely well reasoned) apathy, along with pragmatic concerns of the real value of my vote and the fact that it's hard to find a candidate on the religious left which is the only group I would identify with politically.

Does Australia have primaries or some sort of party in voting to determine candidates?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Trust me, just because I'm silent in not voting does not mean I assent to anything. It's a mixture of some (extremely well reasoned) apathy, along with pragmatic concerns of the real value of my vote and the fact that it's hard to find a candidate on the religious left which is the only group I would identify with politically.

Like the most esteemed pever points out, it is incorrect to say our government is elected by the people. More like just a portion of the people. Even in Australia it wouldn't be right to say that, although they come A LOT closer to it then we do.

You assent to the election being carried out without your vote though :shrug:

The only benefit I see from the australian system is that the parties might care less about energizing their base by far left/right views, and care less about mudslinging (which they say has the main effect of discouraging the base of the opponent).

[miotas]

Does Australia have primaries or some sort of party in voting to determine candidates?

I'm not sure what a primary is, but if it's something like that pre-election election you had between Barrack and Hillary, then no.

[Beskar]

I think if you have a mandatory vote option, you should have the choice to "Void your vote" and even vote "None of the Above". That way, you actively choosing not to vote, and you also cater for those who don't want none of the candidates listed.

[miotas]

You've always got the option to return a blank ballot, or to scrawl offensive words or images all over it. It's called a donkey vote.

[drone]

You've always got the option to return a blank ballot, or to scrawl offensive words or images all over it. It's called a donkey vote.
Yes, but it would be nice if the "None of the Above"/"Gah!" votes actually showed up in the results. That way you could determine how many people cared enough to say that both choices were utter :daisy:.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes, but it would be nice if the "None of the Above"/"Gah!" votes actually showed up in the results. That way you could determine how many people cared enough to say that both choices were utter :daisy:.

Which, I supspect, is precisely why no such category appears on the ballot here. As cynical as we are about politicians here, if there were a ballot choice labeled "the legislature may not meet or pass any laws this year," it might get a plurality.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Which, I supspect, is precisely why no such category appears on the ballot here. As cynical as we are about politicians here, if there were a ballot choice labeled "the legislature may not meet or pass any laws this year," it might get a plurality.

Truly and utterly disgusting. If it weren't for the fact my emotion skipped “sorrow” and went straight to all-out shock and horror, I'd weep for your misfortune to be born a citizen of the USA.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Truly and utterly disgusting. If it weren't for the fact my emotion skipped “sorrow” and went straight to all-out shock and horror, I'd weep for your misfortune to be born a citizen of the USA.

We'll suffer through your sorrow....somehow.

Remember, many of us have little love for government and believe that we'll get along quite well without scads of new laws etc. every year. The basic components of day to day communities do pretty well without the overarching government -- which is how it is supposed to be. Our founders were used to legislatures that met for a 2-3 months per year.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Nah, it is the attitude of resigned cynicism that strikes me as particularly unhealthy... You get it too in police abuse threads, union threads...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Nah, it is the attitude of resigned cynicism that strikes me as particularly unhealthy... You get it too in police abuse threads, union threads...

Don't polls generally show that America is one of the most patriotic countries in the world?

I mean, that's different than cynicism about the government. But I don't get what you're saying about that either. Not caring if the government passes any new laws would be a sign that people are happy with the current state of things.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Don't polls generally show that America is one of the most patriotic countries in the world?

I mean, that's different than cynicism about the government. But I don't get what you're saying about that either. Not caring if the government passes any new laws would be a sign that people are happy with the current state of things.

America is the single greatest, most hard working, god fearing, blessed country ever to be put on God's beautiful Earth and there is no one better then us at anything. (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/174546/june-19-2008/sean-hannity-loves-america) However, our government made by the people, for the people is lazy and bloated and obviously cannot be trusted to guard over the people and must be reduced as much as possible so that the Representatives that the greatest, smartest and most faithful people on Earth elected among the American population (AKA the greatest, smartest and most faithful people on Earth) don't destroy the lives of the greatest, smartest and most faithful people on Earth.

We are the pinnacle of civilization, democracy and modernity but our government that our founding fathers created in their superior wisdom (compared to us, the smartest people on Earth that is some extreme intelligence our founders had) is the most bureaucratic, freedom destroying organization that the greatest, smartest and most faithful people on Earth will ever face.

[miotas]

Yes, but it would be nice if the "None of the Above"/"Gah!" votes actually showed up in the results. That way you could determine how many people cared enough to say that both choices were utter :daisy:.

The government always checks the informal votes to see why people aren't voting usually about 3/4 of votes are informal because they were filled out wrong. The other 1/4 is left blank or has offensive comments and marks, so about 1% or so of the people who vote are basically saying that all pollies are :daisy:

It's also not a matter of "both choices" there are usually 4 or 5 choices for the local representative, and about 70 choices for the senate.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The government always checks the informal votes to see why people aren't voting usually about 3/4 of votes are informal because they were filled out wrong. The other 1/4 is left blank or has offensive comments and marks, so about 1% or so of the people who vote are basically saying that all pollies are :daisy:

It's also not a matter of "both choices" there are usually 4 or 5 choices for the local representative, and about 70 choices for the senate.

That makes no sense, how do you blame the other side for everything wrong to win the next election when there are 69 other sides?

[Tellos Athenaios]

That makes no sense, how do you blame the other side for everything wrong to win the next election when there are 69 other sides?

Simple. You blame whichever parties make up the government instead. ~;) So you look at whose mad ideas got made into policy, then subsequently blame his/her party for that, and associate part of the blame to the parties who consented to let such idiocy ever make it past the internal meetings.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Simple. You blame whichever parties make up the government instead. ~;) So you look at whose mad ideas got made into policy, then subsequently blame his/her party for that, and associate part of the blame to the parties who consented to let such idiocy ever make it past the internal meetings.

I still don't understand, where is the lack of accountability and the absence of facts in this process of assigning blame to those that allowed the bad policies? When you pin point the problem to a specific group how do you shift the blame on all your opponents?

[Beskar]

I have to admit, I am reminded of Starship troopers and the differences of a 'civillian' and a 'citizen' and why 'citizens' are only allowed to vote.

Perhaps they should re-work the system like that, so only citizens have the ability to vote, and you only get citizenship by applying for it, opposed to having it given solely the basis of birth. That way, the civillians who have 'no interest' can go on in their lives, doing whatever except actually caring about the things that do matter, while the 'big boys/gils' who understand the importance of such matters enroll to be a citizen.

Perhaps have it so any naturally born civillian has the right to apply to be a citizen, but it is simply that, you have to apply for it. With applying, you get certain priviledges, such as being able to vote, while having to also commit.

[miotas]

That makes no sense, how do you blame the other side for everything wrong to win the next election when there are 69 other sides?

Most of the parties are pretty small, it's only really the big two that attack each other. The smaller parties don't really have an "other side" to attack so they just say why you should vote for them, and the big parties don't attack the smaller parties since they don't see the smaller parties as much of a threat.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I have to admit, I am reminded of Starship troopers and the differences of a 'civillian' and a 'citizen' and why 'citizens' are only allowed to vote.

Perhaps they should re-work the system like that, so only citizens have the ability to vote, and you only get citizenship by applying for it, opposed to having it given solely the basis of birth. That way, the civillians who have 'no interest' can go on in their lives, doing whatever except actually caring about the things that do matter, while the 'big boys/gils' who understand the importance of such matters enroll to be a citizen.

Perhaps have it so any naturally born civillian has the right to apply to be a citizen, but it is simply that, you have to apply for it. With applying, you get certain priviledges, such as being able to vote, while having to also commit.

A) In order to continue having everything funded, civilians will need to pay taxes as well as citizens. At that point, you must have any application be granted since denying an application to be a citizen and thus vote while simultaneously taxing them is tyranny.
B) How would this application go about? Do you need to pay money? In that case, you just alienated a lot of poor that might have countries best interests at heart. Is it a test of loyalty? In that case, the application is meaningless since anyone can fake being patriotic.

[rory_20_uk]

I would rather an exam that one needs to sit to vote, with some modules one has to sit througth. These days it can be online.

There's no real "cheating" as if you needed to look up the information to pass you've had to grasp some of the issues that you're voting on. The answers were in the module that you just looked at.

Yes, you could get someone to do it for you, but I imagine that those that want to vote will just do it and those that can't be bothered now won't bother to sit through it.

And I don't think that 30 minutes to an hour every 5 years is asking too much.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

A) In order to continue having everything funded, civilians will need to pay taxes as well as citizens. At that point, you must have any application be granted since denying an application to be a citizen and thus vote while simultaneously taxing them is tyranny.
B) How would this application go about? Do you need to pay money? In that case, you just alienated a lot of poor that might have countries best interests at heart. Is it a test of loyalty? In that case, the application is meaningless since anyone can fake being patriotic.

In Starship Troopers, you did national service or worked in one of the government registered departments which granted you citizenship. Also, their justification for taxing civillians are that civillians need to be protected, they still want benefits, etc, so the taxes paid for those.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In Starship Troopers, you did national service or worked in one of the government registered departments which granted you citizenship. Also, their justification for taxing civillians are that civillians need to be protected, they still want benefits, etc, so the taxes paid for those.

But they dont get to determine how much protection they want or how many benefits they get because they have no representation. So again, it's a form of tyranny since the government could simply up the taxes and claim its for the protection they want even if the public is satisfied with the protection they have.

It actually now that I think about it, somewhat similar to the situation the english colonies had before they rebelled. They payed taxes so they could be protected from the evil indians and french but the fact that they still had no say in the process created a lot of civil rights violations.

[Beskar]

But they dont get to determine how much protection they want or how many benefits they get because they have no representation. So again, it's a form of tyranny since the government could simply up the taxes and claim its for the protection they want even if the public is satisfied with the protection they have.

It actually now that I think about it, somewhat similar to the situation the english colonies had before they rebelled. They payed taxes so they could be protected from the evil indians and french but the fact that they still had no say in the process created a lot of civil rights violations.

But they choose not to do National service, for example. Which those posters from Sweden and areas where they have it, they pretty much just sit around for a year when they are 18.

In otherwords, the citizenship is earned and you want to protect your liberties and exert your will on the system.

To quote:

Jean Rasczak: You. Why are only citizens allowed to vote?
Student: It's a reward. Something the federation gives you for doing federal service.
Jean Rasczak: No. Something given has no basis in value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.

There is a choice in the matter, you either earn the right to exercise political authority or choose not to earn it.